October 18, 2007

She selected a key adviser she knows has scandalously flouted the law, lied to deflect blame onto others, and subverted the democratic processes that provide accountability for officials' conduct. She selected someone who has destroyed documents that could be crucial to America's security to be a trusted councilor on national security matters - documents that could have contained hand-written notes by her husband or information that would have called his judgment into question....

Hillary's inclusion of Sandy Berger in her circle of advisers demonstrates that, notwithstanding her law license, she really doesn't care about the law. She doesn't care whether someone violates the law if they're on her team, if the violation in some way helps the Clintons. Hillary's indifference to criminal wrong-doing suggests that she sees herself as above the law, breezily ignoring law when it's an impediment to something she wants.

At this point in the circus, Clinton and Giuliani are the only two potential candidates I can see myself voting for. It's troubling, then, to see them do things that make them less acceptable. Soon, it will be back to holding my nose and voting for the least evil.

. . . she really doesn't care about the law. She doesn't care whether someone violates the law if they're on her team, if the violation in some way helps the Clintons. Hillary's indifference to criminal wrong-doing suggests that she sees herself as above the law, breezily ignoring law when it's an impediment to something she wants.

As someone who has said more than once that I am inclined to vote for Clinton, I was greatly disturbed by this news when I read about it a couple of weeks ago. I don't care who else may have done something similar or what party they belong to. Sandy Berger should not be welcomed back. Stealing documents from the National Archives is simply not acceptable behavior. I had hoped that Clinton would publicly disassociate herself from him. Her failure to do so may well determine whether or not I bother to vote.

No I don't. But to be so offended by Clinton hiring Berger as an advisor when Abrams, who was convicted of lying to congress and sold arms to Iran (and had felony indictments pending), held an important policy position in the Bush White House, is an astounding display of hypocrisy. Not to mention the almost hiring of Kerik as homeland security chief.

Internet Ronin consistently demonstrates he holds certain values and he sticks to them. Too bad that trait is not more common among the elected and chattering classes. They usually claim they are simply being loyal to a longtime public servant.

And hdhouse, many of the conservatives here did not defend Scoooter Libby when he was conviceted by a jury of his peers.

Reagan sold the arms, on the advice of the idiot Kissinger acolyte McFarlane, who'd also pushed the Beirut debacle.Abrams did not know if he could tell Congress the Saudis had given money to the Contras at US request and stupidly lied, but corrected himself days later. One tried to preserve state secrets, the other destroyed them forever.

Looks like HRC has learned her hubby's ability to "compartmentalize." And you really have to admire the ability, at least of Bill, to get people like Berger and Susan McDougall to take the hits for them. I suspect Berger will remain in the kitchen cabinet, as I dont see him ever being appointed to a post which would require Senate confirmation--but stranger things have happened.

Then why, in a comment thread about Clinton hiring Sandy Berger, do you immediately point out the same behavior in the Bush White House?

But to be so offended by Clinton hiring Berger as an advisor when Abrams, who was convicted of lying to congress and sold arms to Iran (and had felony indictments pending), held an important policy position in the Bush White House, is an astounding display of hypocrisy.

So? Hypocricy is overrated. Even if Althouse had defended Bush for the Abrams/Kerik business (which she has not, as far as I recall), that does not invalidate the argument (which she didn't actually make) that it is inappropriate for Clinton to hire Berger. Hypocritical? Sure. But still valid criticism. Pointing out the hypocrisy is simply an attempt to change the subject and avoid the issue at hand. It's basically an ad hominem.

I think Pogo almost hits the mark, but I don't think it's loyalty. I suspect hiring Berger was required to keep him from talking. Surely, Hill and Bill knew what Berger was doing in the archives and they knew why. They probably directed him to do it. Berger might be willing to sing if he doesn't get what he wants.

She selected a key adviser she knows has scandalously flouted the law, lied to deflect blame onto others, and subverted the democratic processes that provide accountability for officials' conduct.

Look, I really don't like Hillary. I have a lower opinion of her than I do most of the other candidates running for President right now. (And I mean both parties.) But isn't this just par for the course for the modern American politician?

Do you think the lefties *really* care about "torture" or "gitmo"? Its only a stick to beat Bush with.

Well, this is one "lefty" whose concern about torture is more than a partisan stick to beat Bush with. I don't care who is torturing whom. I am against it and I will harshly criticize anyone who defends or excuses it (or claims that they suffered worse hazing in college as a way to diminish the atrocities we are committing).

Even if Althouse had defended Bush for the Abrams/Kerik business (which she has not, as far as I recall), that does not invalidate the argument (which she didn't actually make) that it is inappropriate for Clinton to hire Berger.

Well of course not. Althouse never actually takes a stand on anything (except that onion rings and carrot sticks have sexual meaning--about that there is no doubt). She just posts other people's opinions or cute pictures of bears and refuses to be pinned down on what she actually thinks (because I suspect, she doesn't).

Wrong is wrong and giving her a pass for giving him a pass, invalidates any criticism of Bush1, Bush2, Reagan, etc. for those sorts of things. And to call BS on it is, as Justin said, is a deflection. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives. No big deal, than shut up about Scooter Libby, et al. And don't call me out unless your admitting your not above that.

I suspect that whatever Berger took, and I am guessing annotated copies of some memoranda, that material is not nearly as damning as we now believe it to be. We have the benefit of hindsight with respect to 9/11, and the country delights in assigning blame, so I can really understand why team Clinton might be concerned. For me, if anyone told me that 20 terrorists were going to simultaneouosly going to hijack 4 domestic flights and crash them into the WTC, the pentagon, and the white house, I would wonder what you were smoking and probably would have doodled something on a memo to that effect.

As I recall, the nature of Berger's crime was discussed on the Althouse blog in the last few months. Based on my memory of the comments and what I've read independently, there is no evidence that Sandy Berger destroyed anything but copies of documents, and the copies did not have hand-written notes.

Is there a good explanation why Ronald Cass misrepresents the evidence in the Berger case?

I will harshly criticize anyone who defends or excuses it (or claims that they suffered worse hazing in college as a way to diminish the atrocities we are committing).

And I will harshly criticize anyone who thinks they hold some moral high ground by letting innocents die because they think slapping or waterboarding a terrorist is an atrocity.

Then again somehow I don't think you will do much criticizing if she wins. I seem to recall you decrying the threat of 'Christian terrorists' yet willingly turned a blind eye to your buddy's brother who hangs out in some compound surrounded by gun nuts planning to take over the country.

I seem to recall you decrying the threat of 'Christian terrorists' yet willingly turned a blind eye to your buddy's brother who hangs out in some compound surrounded by gun nuts planning to take over the country.

And I will harshly criticize anyone who thinks they hold some moral high ground by letting innocents die because they think slapping or waterboarding a terrorist is an atrocity.

I know I hold the hard ground and absolutely no evidence has been presented that a single life has been saved because of these techniques, just some vague assurances from the President that these techniques have produced good intelligence.

the copies did not have hand-written notes. Why else would he risk so much to take them? It is difficult to give the other side the benefit of the doubt. I'm still angry no one was punished for the FBI file "snafu". The FBI people who sent the files should have been fired at least.

Original Mike--You are absolutely right--I dont approve of what was done, but can understand why.

No one: I think the evidence is highly ambiguous about what was taken and/or destroyed. The smell test works best: why would Berger risk what he did, remove and secret documents under a construction trailer outside, if he didnt want to make them disappear.

She didn't hire Sandy Berger. He is one of many people from whom she solicits advice. She has repeatedly denied hiring him. The campaign has denied hiring him. Everyone knows he wasn't hired but you are making it urban myth.

No one justifies his prior action. No one. But, if memory serves me correctly, he was accused and plead and the DOJ and Berger ended that saga.

So what is at issue here is a mud hurler writing a bullshit article that is, if you read it, just full of hype and typical crap that sounds more like Rush Limbaugh on drugs....Ann tosses it out here and watches as the dogged right salavates at the opportunity and goes for the meat.

When Hillary is elected will this group of lemmings change tune and "all hail the commander in chief" or will you step it up just because you have nothing else to say and nothing to contribute? my guess is you'll do the later because the former "just isn't in ya'"

On Wednesday, we quoted Justice Department prosecutor Noel Hillman that no original documents were destroyed, and that the contents of all five at issue still exist and were made available to the 9/11 Commission. But that point didn't register with some readers, who continue to suggest a vast, well, apparently a vast left- and right-wing conspiracy. The Washington Times, the Rocky Mountain News and former Clintonite Dick Morris have also been peddling dark suspicions based on misinformation.

The confusion seems to stem from the mistaken idea that there were handwritten notes by various Clinton Administration officials in the margins of these documents, which Mr. Berger may have been able to destroy. But that's simply an "urban myth," prosecutor Hillman tells us, based on a leak last July that was "so inaccurate as to be laughable." In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror "after-action" report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all.

"Those documents, emphatically, without doubt--I reviewed them myself--don't have notations on them," Mr. Hillman tells us. Further, "there is no evidence after comprehensive investigation to suggest he took anything other than the five documents at issue and they didn't have notes." Mr. Berger's sentencing is scheduled for July, and Mr. Hillman assures us Justice's sentencing memo will lay out the facts and "make sure Mr. Berger explains what he did and why he did it."

Is there a good explanation why Ronald Cass misrepresents the evidence in the Berger case?

Schiller: In the Philippines when you passed that bag of underwear, Moscow was not amused! I should have acted then. But now it is no longer possible for you to remain United States. This bizarre incident has given them their Yuri, Evgeny Segevich(No Way Out 1987)

Did Berger destroy documents? yes; he was presumably unaware that there were five copies. He admited to taking three of the five documents to his office and shredding them with sissors. How do we know he destroyed three documents? Here: the DOJ press release about his guilty plea: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/April/05_crm_155.htm. It is Hillman's statement that is a bit strange. Note he says the contents of the documents (not the documents themselves) still exist and were copied from a hard drive; that he has seen those five. But what Mr Hillman hasnt seen; nor as the IG, the three documents that were destroyed. The DOJ's handling of this is pretty flakey as well as Hillman's statement is a masterfully weasle-worded statement and doesnt bear parsing.

At any rate, I suspect we are not going agree on either what Berger did. As for me, I will continue to be a conspiracy theorist, tinfoil hat and all, on the Berger matter. The whole thing, including Berger's actions, the archive's handing of the situation including the IG's report, and the DOJ investigation all smell to high heaven. YMMV.

Yeah, Hillman's comments are ambiguous on at least one point. Were the copies that Berger stole printed out from a hard drive immediately before being handed to Berger? That seems to be what he's saying, in which case nothing was lost. His commment "I reviewed them myself" only makes sense in this context, since he can't have reviewed the physical copy Berger destroyed.

Aides to the New York Democrat were unapologetic about Berger's advisory role, noting he is not a central figure but has valuable and welcome input that he is providing voluntarily.

But Hoekstra took issue with the idea of letting someone convicted in connection with that sort of crime even voluntarily advise the campaign.

"Sandy Berger had a high position within our national security apparatus once before. He abused that position. He took top secret materials. He took them home, and we still have not really discovered or know what was in the documents or why they were so important for him to take them," Hoekstra said.

"It's clearly an indication that Sandy Berger is on the way back. That even though he abused the office that he held before and the privilege that he had before that there's a way for him to get back in and become a part of the national policy-making within the United States of America," he added.

Mike: but your surmise raises another question: why in the world would Berger need five copies of the same document? One hard copy from a hard drive would suffice. It is for that reason I will continue in the throes of my conspiracy theory and believe those copies were annotated. Other than that Berger has to be one of the more stupid men inside the beltway to steal and destroy 3 copies of the exact same document knowing the contents were on a hard drive!

Roger: I'm guessing the hard drive held 5 version numbers of a given memo. I'd like to know what the file format was. Were they scanned (e.g. scanned PDFs of physical copies) in which case it could be the same memo, with 5 different peoples notes on them.

Hoekstra: "It's clearly an indication that Sandy Berger is on the way back. That even though he abused the office that he held before and the privilege that he had before that there's a way for him to get back in and become a part of the national policy-making within the United States of America,"

This is a deep concern. Sandy Berger shouldn't get any closer to documents in the National Archives than the public tour.

Mike: the pdf thing is the only explanation that makes sense and squares with everybody's statements. At least thats the logical explanation! in the absense of conspiracies, guess I should go with logic. And if thats correct, it does mean Berger is genuinely stupid and unaware what a pdf file is on a hard drive!

Here is a good analysis of the underlying events from the staff of the House Oversight Committee. It may be one sided, but it poses the right questions. Unanswered Questions

bottom line: Berger had access to some documents printed from files, he had access to originals that were inventoried only at the document count level (e.g. not at the page level), and he had access to bulk folders of his private staff files and those of Richard Clarke. There ws no inventory done before the fact on those raw files.

He could have destroyed much more than he admits to destroying. One Berger knows what he destroyed, and he lied about it to start

of course all but the most dullwitted of the right wing knows that berger lost his security clearance the minute he plead...actually minute he surrendered technically...so you have no risk whatsoever of him gaining access to anything. so that point has never been on the table.

now if you will all stop being so hysterical and look at the facts, take a deep breath, realize that Hillary didn't HIRE him and toss this red meat aside.

I was a TS documents Custodian. Both Berger and NARA were guilty of multiple security violations that would have hung me.

incredible.

that basic rule about "nobody, regardless of rank or position" should be assumed to have the need to know or the right to break the rules" was clearly broken repeatedly by many people to assist Berger.

now if you will all stop being so hysterical and look at the facts, take a deep breath, realize that Hillary didn't HIRE him and toss this red meat aside.

So you have absolutely no problem with Hillary getting advice from him.

The point you're missing is not whether or not he gets access to security clearance again but a presidential candidate's relationship with him. I mean after HSU, taking money from indicted trial lawers, it certainly doesn't paint you as a model for ethics when you take advice from someone who lost thier clearance for stealing.

Stop with the bait and switch, already HD. We all know and agree she didnt hire him--and the fact that he doesnt have a security clearance has no affect on the advice he gives other than perhaps make it a bit less meaningful. The giving of advice does not require a security clearance. The issue that you are ignoring is the fact that she is taking advice from him at all. Now, there--isnt that easy once all of your strawmen are swept aside?

Seeing how upset you folks are about Hillary Clinton's association with Sandy Berger, you must have had a complete meltdown when your boy appointed John Poindexter to be Director of the DARPA Information Awareness Office.

Roger, On the advice now or later, its going to get much more interesting.

1. Berger doesnt have a clearance2. he's offering advice on foreign policy3. in 6 months, candidate Hillary will start getting NSC briefings at the TS/SCI level. 4. she can't share that with Berger, and arguably, should not discuss foreign policy with him at that point, because she can't really separate what she knows from the unclass and class sources.

no one--With respect to Poindexter, as a matter of fact I did; and as a Rudy supporter, I would have a similar meltdown if heretained Bernie Kerik on his staff in any capacity--but how does that question bear on HRC's judgment in using Berger as an (presumably) unpaid advisor?

When Nixon began his makeover, any associations and advice to major Republicans were backchanneled because whatever advice he may have offered was tainted in appearance. His public involvement would be offensive to so many law-abiding, hard-working Americans. Reagan, in having Nixon to the White house once because of Nixon's Time Magazine Criticism of Reagan's arms plans, allowed no photos, and did did not seek the advice of the former President, according to Michael Deaver. The President was well aware, 15 years after nixon left office, how offensive that might be to many Americans.

Publicly announcing that you are going to seek advice from someone who disgraced himself as Berger did - and received an extremely light sentence for his crimes - speaks of a stab in the eye to the average law-abiding American of every political stripe. It says that loyalty surpasses character. Funny - so many of our liberal friends detest that very issue in Bush - Libby.

The problem with Hillary is not her competence or qualifications - this conservative has already acknowledged that she can qualify for the job on those points. The bottom line is character - that's where the most important, from the gut, in-times-of-emergency decisions come from.

And on that bottom line Hillary has demonstrated repeatedly for over 30 years that she doesn't have the character or judgment to be the President of the United States.

Roger said... "The issue that you are ignoring is the fact that she is taking advice from him at all. Now, there--isnt that easy once all of your strawmen are swept aside?"

Roger, your bullshit is easy to shovel aside...even if there is so much of it.

How many times has Berger "advised" her? and on what? do you know? or are you, like everyone else, just speculating?Does she meet with him alone or with others? She has secret service with her at all times now, particularly with potential security risks...

so what do you hachet jobs think is going on? planning to bury the gun they used to kill vince foster with? making more investment deals 30 years ago come alive? just what is your problem?

if your comments weren't so pitiful i'd take you out behind the shed and whup ya. STOP speculating.

Ah HD--poor baby didnt get enough sleep last nite and is grouchy--You understand it is thost bastions of the VRWC such as the Washington Post who are reporting this. and if you dont mind, Pilgrim, I will continue to speculate--

My recommendation: get some sleep, hit the prozac salt lick, take a snort of Lithium, and read up on the war powers resultion of 1993 and how the senate really didnt authorize the president to use force in Iraq.

Hilary Clinton can take advice from whomever she wishes. To judge someone as having expertise or institutional memory about a specific set of information is not the same thing as an endorsement of his character. She's not asking anyone else to trust him. She might or might not trust him. He will never be confirmed to any position in government, and I suspect that unless Hillary doesn't want a second term, she won't put him in the WH in an uncomfirmed position either. Clearly, if the point is to rehabilitate him by involving him in her campaign, that will fail. She is taking all the risk, given the kinds of commercials this story will surely prompt next year.

There is an alternate explanation for Berger's misdeeds, and that is that he was not trying to destroy documents but instead trying to shore up his and Clinton's memory of events that were now being looked at differently after 9/11. The danger he was trying to avoid was not disclosure but a damaging misstatement. Clinton was not exactly Mr. Anti-Terror as president, and Berger was not much of a leader in this area either. What were they told after certain event was probably something the two of them couldn't remember. Perhaps there wasn't time to take adequate notes for the purpose so he thought he'd sneak them out. He had to destroy the documents because the alternative, giving them back, would have implicated him in their unauthorized removal. Given what the DOJ found, the conclusion that Berger must have been trying to destroy documents to protect Clinton or himself by burying history is a leap that the facts don't justify.

This business of Berger surrendering his law license rather than face a further probe also proves nothing. After his conviction, it was apparent he would lose the license, so why drag it out?

Not everyone will be convinced Berger was a well-intentioned idiot rather than a traitor, which is why his government career is over. But as a source of knowledge and insight, he obviously has some value to Hillary and I don't think it says a thing about her character one way or the other that she would call on him for counsel.

I respectfully disagree. She is basically showing that she does not want the advice of law abiding people who disagree with her (Republicans, pro-lifers, et al) and yet seeks the advice of cronies despite their public crimes, a slap in the face at law abiding citizens of any political stripe.

Hmmm, cronyism, let's see - where have we recently been hearing that's a bad thing?

b....best advice i can give you is when you are digging yourself in a hole and it is now way way way over your head...stop digging.

Patreus surrendered his high ground when he agreed to be used as a human political shield for the president...when his "report" was written for him with white house help...when his first venture into the public arena was Faux Noise followed up by Rush and Sean.

Now I realize there can be a rational explanation for a man of Patreus' obvious skill as a commander and his intellect but ....

So show me where she attacked Patreus' veracity? Here is her preamble speech to the testimony ...go ahead show me.

John Stodder said...Not everyone will be convinced Berger was a well-intentioned idiot rather than a traitor, which is why his government career is over. But as a source of knowledge and insight, he obviously has some value to Hillary and I don't think it says a thing about her character one way or the other that she would call on him for counsel.

John, your analysis was reasonable. I don't agree with it, but it was reasoned and civil. however, I would argue that regardless of whether Berger was a "well intentioned idiot" or a member of a grand conspiracy, what he did, even under your most benign view disqualifies him from a position of trust in our government or in a campaign. Further, he clearly demonstrated a gross lack of judgement to sneak TS/SCI documents out and hide them in a vacant lot. His value as an advisor would need to be based on his judgement, which he completely lacks. The fact that Hillary doesnt see that demonstrates that she values loyalty over judgement.

I agree that John Stodder again has good insight. I will add that 10% of the people will find that Hillary! can do no good -- she could hire a host of saints as advisors and they'd complain that she didn't hire lutherans -- whereas 10% have drunk the Hillary! Kool-Aid and will overlook anything she does.

I'm with the vast majority in the middle who don't care who Presidential Candidates are using as advisors 12+ months before the election. I suppose it's great blogfodder, and that's about it.

Someone else on this thread mentioned Nixon providing counsel to various presidents. This seems like the same kind of thing. Nixon was deservedly disgraced and finished as a public servant because of his misdeeds. But his knowledge and insights were of unquestioned value.

To give another example that will drive everyone nuts: John Dean. Served time in prison. Now he's probably the most histrionic critic of Bush out there. He makes Daily Kos seem reasonable. I think in his latest book, he claims that Bush has literally destroyed the United States government. He's making a fortune with these books.

Does it show a lack of character on the part of publishers, liberal book-buyers and talkshow hosts that they pay attention to what this convicted Watergate felon has to say?

I worked for one of the most principled men ever in politics -- Tom Bradley. But the people who "advised" him (not staff, but people who could get meetings with him or who he had someone call if he had a question) weren't all his equals in character, and some of them were total skanks. But he knew how to separate what they could provide him that had value from the other aspects of their character or life history.

No one can doubt that Sandy Berger has a unique grasp of foreign policy, and until someone can show that he's been assigned to steal documents for Hillary, I find it difficult to get upset that she's listening to him from time to time.

HD, needing sleep and on a roll opines: "Patreus surrendered his high ground when he agreed to be used as a human political shield for the president...when his "report" was written for him with white house help..."

A couple of points HD: The President is the Commander in Chief and any General in the chain is command works for civilian authority--the keep the military subordinate to civilian authority--thats a far better situation for America than the other way around: say in Burma or Pakistan.

With respect to your erroneous assertion that the report was written with white house help. You clearly believe the General is lying because he completely disavows that in the second paragraph of his testimony: http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/Petraeus-Testimony20070910.pdf

So you apparently believe he is misrepresenting his authorship. If you dont mind I think I will go with General Petaeus' version rather than yours.

I mean, come on. The guy stuck some papers down his pants, which he shouldn't have outta done.

But NO-ONE DIED.

Bush and Rice and the rest of the cabal lied the American people into a war, they used falsifed documents to push a false story on Iraq developing nuclear weapons, they started breaking the law on warrantless eavesdropping BEFORE 9/11.

This should not have been a surprise as Senator Clinton had outlined her respect for Mr. Berger’s advice in her campaign biography: Every Village Needs an Idiot. I guess we can figure out what his role will be, since it seems unlikely that John Edwards will be the vice-presidential nominee and Mr. Gore is preparing to enter the Olympics to compete in the luge.

HDHouse: of course all but the most dullwitted of the right wing knows that berger lost his security clearance the minute he plead...actually minute he surrendered technically...so you have no risk whatsoever of him gaining access to anything. so that point has never been on the table.

Larsporsena: AS part of his sentence his security clearance was suspended for only 3 years. IN 2008 HE'S BACK.

Which you knew full well, didn't you, house?

This stuff about his "career in government is over" is far, far from certain. If Democrats control the Senate, he's in.

And hey, AlphaLiberal, are you the same AlphaLiberal who so recently put their intellect on display over at Riehl's? The demonstrable lie about lying us into war might be believed by twits, but those of us who have been paying attention not only know better, but feel insulted that you assume we are so stupid as to not know better. Remember, "we can fact-check your ass."

If Berger's the best thing the Republicans can come up with t counter Hillary or the Democrats run for the White House...they're in deeper shit that first thought.

Romney, McCain, Thompson and Rudy have already fired or had a number of "advisers" bail out because of questionable backgrounds and misdeeds.

And please, let's not forget that George W. Bush's primary "advisers" have been made up of: Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie, Kristol, Rove, Libby, Rice, etc...and we can ALL see how well that's worked out for America and the Republican party.

Between the use of highly questionable intelligence getting us into Iraq, the torture prosecutions, the illegal wiretapping, the Gonzales lies and distortions, the Libby convictions, the Foley scandal, the Craig wide stance situation, the Vitter prostitution scene and the rest of the current Republicans insanity...it's hard to imagine the American public giving a flying fuck about Sandy Berger advising Hillary Clinton.

I'm the one who wrote about Nixon above. The point I am making is not that Presidents cannot or should not seek advice from anyone they desire. They should not be of such Social Tone Deafness and Moral Flubber that they flaunt certain advisors in public.

Hillary - we got ourselves a Woman President! (Pat on backs)But boy, is she mistake-prone!

Agree with Stodder. If someone is out there that can offer valuable advice, take it.Nixon of course was an excellent example. For 30 years his insights into foreign policy and domestic US politics were sought by ambassadors, other heads of State, leaders in Congress, and every US President but Carter. Unlike Kissinger who got rich charging by the word to advise the Saudis and his other clients, Nixon gave it away gratis, except for his books.

If Communications with the dead existed, King Hussein and Reagan would be getting calls in heaven from Hillary and Dubya, Nixon's phone would be busy in purgatory, and Mao and Assad would have hot lines in hell.

**********************Nothing wrong with Berger hanging with Team Hillary after showing dog-like loyalty. Where it gets interesting is, as another poster mentions, Bergers 3-year ban on having a security clearance goes away - and if Hillary tries to squirrel him away in a "no-confirmation post"(if elected - and Hillary is not "inevitable")

Your assertion re: the Petraeus report is a flat out smearing lie. You don't WANT to believe that his plan is a success, therefore, you will hallucinate a reason to disregard it. You have zero credibility. Along with the other lefty "Bush lied" koolaid drinkers.

hdhouse, You're quite the toilet mouth ... it doesn't help your position and it makes most readers think less of you.

The plain fact is that Berger confessed to committing a crime. No other presidential candidate has a criminal as an advisor, paid or unpaid. It just shows disrespect for the law. I suppose you also support disbarred lawyer and felon Lynne Stewart teaching ethics at Hofstra Law School.

No. I'm saying America wasn't lied into the invasion. Note the lack of weaselly quote marks. Guess it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

"Mike. What I know and you don't know would engulf you in sorrow."

I don't know anything about this Mike dude, so you may be right. Care to take me on, sweetheart? I'd email you my CV (you do know what a CV is, don't you?) but for the fact that your repeated postings here demonstrate either a complete lack of critical thinking skills, or a complete lack of honesty, or both (and why bother to repeat? Prof. Althouse: please, PLEASE put hdhouse on your boilerplate comments. Maybe something like "Bush lied blah blah blah. Illegal war blah blah blah. Torture blah blah blah." That way it saves his time and ours.).

The Petreaus incident was offensive to thousands of our men and women in the military - whether they support the war or not (use Technorati,or if you want, I'll list milblogs later).

The issue on Petreaus is that Hillary pandered to the moveon crowd, seeking to show her left-leaning bonafides by questioning Petreaus veracity. Which is a questioning of the character of a man who has done far more for his country than Hillary has.

No cajones. No balls. This from a woman that wants to lead the united States Military. That kind of disrespect - even one sentence - lost her thousands of votes (I'm hoping millions), including several Democrats I know personally all the way out here in California.

Pandering - of course, she's a politician. but each incident either means something innocous or is indicative of a type of character. The Petreaus incident alone shows a type of both tone-deafness - a lack of knowing what issues matter - and reveals that the Hillary of the disrepecting the military White house years is still alive and well.

b,If you really think, at this point in time...after the 8 years of the Clinton being dogged during the 80's and 90's...that we're going to find some spectacular nugget about Hillary...you're dreaming.

What you see is what you're going to get...whether you like or agree with her or not.

Bush is the past. We're going to focus on the future. And we don't compare character to how other people are worse. That's for hypocrites that just care about getting what they want, everyone else be damned. We'll use a higher standard.

No-one gins up the manufactured outrage better than a con.You're saying that at sites like dKos the outrage is authentic, or not ginned up? That isn't reassuring. I always assumed they were having a vitriol competition.

You still believe "Curveball's" information regarding the WMD was true?

Curveball was a liar and a fantasist. A very good one, apparently, because he hoodwinked the intelligence agencies of several countries including our CIA.

However, Bob Drogin's new book on Curveball conclusively ends the myth that Bush or Cheney "lied us into war." Drogin is no fan of Bush, that is very clear, but in his view,

"The real scandal here was the intelligence failure. The administration didn’t have to cherry-pick intelligence to go to war, because the CIA served it to them on a silver platter.... The Iraq NIE of late 2002 was produced in 19 days. It’s too simple to assume that three guys sitting in a room caused the war. The causes have more to do with bureaucracy and groupthink. Time and again CIA leaders ignored contrary evidence, brushed aside complaints, and even punished skeptics. Those who tried to bring truth to power were treated like heretics. There was tawdry ambition, frightening ineptitude and spineless leadership.... (T)he debate before the war was not really about whether Saddam had WMD. The Iraqis were the only ones saying there were no WMDs and it turns out they were telling the truth. Otherwise, intelligence organizations and governments universally believed that he did have them, even the French and the Germans, though they thought he was in a box and so it wasn’t worth going to war. What I tried to do was figure out what went wrong and how and agency that spent $45 billion a year (and more now) led us into the worst foreign policy nightmare of the past forty years. Never before has American sacrificed so much blood, treasure, and prestige in pursuit of a delusion, and Curveball was a big part of the reason for that.

The above is from "Six Questions for Bob Drogin," Harper's magazine 10/14/07.

Link: http://harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001420

So, farewell "Bush lied." 'Twas good to know ya. Keep saying it LOS but know you are arguing in bad faith.

And maybe now the NY Times and others will look at self-serving leaks from the CIA a little less credulously. Maybe?

Crimso, one and the same. I enjoyed calling Riehl on bullying small children. What an asshole.

Funny how you reject that Bush lied us into a war but don't offer one shred of evidence to back up your fantasy.

You just repeat the talking points.

Let's review, - No WMD, the reason we invaded. - No drone planes capable of reaching the USA. - No mobile anthrax labs. - No uranium from Africa. - No reconstituted nuclear weapons- No link to 9/11 (that would be one country to the south, which Bush protects)- etc- so forth

There's only a small sliver of the population that refuses to stare the facts in the face and acknowledge the Bush and Cheney lied. The deadenders.

So, farewell "Bush lied." 'Twas good to know ya. Keep saying it LOS but know you are arguing in bad faith.

Actually no, the administration, especially Cheney, consistently lied about the strength of the intelligence and implied there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Even today Bush spins the fantastical tale that we invaded because the Iraqis were not cooperating with the weapons inspections. This of course is a complete lie. We kept telling the inspectors where to look (because we were "certain" the weapons were there and "knew exactly" where they were stored and were being manufactured) and they were finding nothing. It shouldn't have taken a genius to figure out that the intelligence was bad and for the administration to stop saying that they were absolutely certain Saddam had vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and there was "no doubt" that he had reconstituted his nuclear program.

"Funny how you reject that Bush lied us into a war but don't offer one shred of evidence to back up your fantasy."

But that's not at all the way it works. If you assert Bush lied, it is up to you to prove the assertion, otherwise he is presumed innocent. Reminiscent of the idiocy of Rather and Mapes when they insisted that nobody had proven the memos were fakes. How they could have advanced so far in their careers without knowing that the burden was on them remains unexplained.

As to Kerik, he is not, at least at this time. In this country we have a presumption of innocence: innocent until proven guilty.

*My point regarding Kerik relates to yours and others hammering at Hillary about associating with Berger. Rudy, who is ALSO running for President, literally recommended Kerik to be the head of Homeland Security...yet I see no comments here that address this.

Libby is convicted, and no longer with the government. Why is it relevant who paid his legal bills?

*Well, because along whit paying his bills, he's still to this day, supported by Bush, Cheney and others in the current administration, even though they know he's a "convicted criminal"...just like Berger. (And if you think none of them still "associate" with him or ask him for "advice" you're dreaming.)

As for Gonzales, is he convicted of anything? Where is the court decision that said he lied? Isn't that your just your spin, the lefty position?

*No not yet. But if you yourself are a attorney, are you saying you approve his obvious misdirection and flat out lies before Congress? Is Berger's conviction bigger in your mind?

And Yoo? Come on! He's a law professor and hasn't been fired or disbarred. Just because you disagree with him on what constitutes torture doesn't mean anything. That's a real stretch!

*Yoo wrote and re-wrote a memos to justify the torture of prisoners and even Mukasey had this to say about a 2002 Justice Department opinion by the head of its Office of Legal Counsel that gave Bush the power to ignore federal law and torture terrorism suspects. The memo "was worse than a sin, it was a mistake," Mukasey said.

I would like to know who in the Justice Department approved the plea agreement for Berger and what political ties that person has. Does anyone know this person's name?

*Nope...but I can't imagine it being any more odious than approaching AG Ashcroft while he lie in a hospital bed after surgery...do YOU think??

I see dozens of commenters moaning about Hillary Clinton's association with Sandy Berger but only one person expresses similar outrage about Boy Bush's appointment of Poindexter. This convinces me that the outrage about Berger isn't based on principle.

Freder:Being a scientist, I guess "prove" means something different to me than you. But we may have really made a breakthrough here. I suspect a great deal of the current acrimony in our national politics results from the same words meaning different things to different people.

I repeat a story that I think is appropos to the freaky republican cabal on here today including some new faces or old faces with new names.

There were two indians. Identical twins. One told the truth, no matter what was asked, every time. The absolute truth. The other told a lie every time, no matter what was asked the response was an out and out lie.

On the death of the twins, a wood carver was asked to capture their likenesses, for as twins they were quite famous and as being mirrors of each other except for the truth/lie thing, this would be an attraction...something to remember.

Well the dead twins were posed and the wood carver did marvelous work. Perfect. Alas, though on completion of the task, the carver mysteriously died and with his death, knowledge of the identity of the likenesses died with him. and when it came time to display his work, there was a great debate as to which likeness was which. Many in the town wanted only the likeness of the virtuous truth teller to be displayed, and in the end, that was agreed up as it would do no good to display the image of a total liar. But which was which?

The medicine man stepped forth and offered to cast a spell on the wooden images and the mayor of the town would be able to ask one question of of the statues - but only one.

The spell was cast and everyone gathered around as the mayor approached. being a politician, he was very clever so he said, "Since I have only one question I can ask, I'll ask you together. Gentlemen, If you are the teller of truth, please answer yes".

Being a scientist, I guess "prove" means something different to me than you.

More likely, you have different standards for what constitutes a lie. When Clinton lied about having sex with "that woman", I'm sure you were appalled, when Cheney said that there was "no doubt"(not "based on our intelligence we believe") that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear programs or Rumsfeld said we knew "exactly" (not "we think we know") where the WMDs were stockpiled even though they knew neither, you didn't consider those statements lies.

"This convinces me that the outrage about Berger isn't based on principle."

If Condi Rice does the same thing after the Bush admin is over, will you see that the same way you see the Berger situation? I suspect not, and further suspect that your view of it wouldn't be based on principle. The retort that "Bush did the same thing" is tempting, but still a logical fallacy. And I'm not being selective in my outrage. My outrage is with those who drone on about Bush's criminal cronies, but haven't uttered a peep WRT Berger. We know what Poindexter was up to. I'll be satisfied when Berger comes clean. As yet, he has not (polygraph him).

Your assumption that I am a Republican is as laughable as my assumption that you are an Iranian mullah. Just because you share some of their worldview, doesn't make you one of them (nor even sympathetic to them). Your assumption that I am freaky is quite correct, though.

...when Cheney said that there was "no doubt"(not "based on our intelligence we believe") that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear programs or Rumsfeld said we knew "exactly" (not "we think we know") where the WMDs were stockpiled even though they knew neither, you didn't consider those statements lies.

Again, I refer you to Drogin, arch-liberal reporter for the LA Times and author of the celebrated new book on Curveball.

You write as if you know that Cheney had two piles of intel from which he could choose what to believe, what to ignore and what to lie about. That's not a fact. It was the CIA where the two (or more) piles existed and it was their judgment as to which to believe and forward to the policymakers.

It's not a small distinction. If you're the president and your primary source of intel is telling you that Iraq has WMDs -- not saying maybe, not giving you a choice of what to believe, but unambiguously telling you -- it is irresponsible to act as if Iraq doesn't have WMDs.

You could still decide not to go to war, but you would be making that decision in the face of intel that you had no reason to disbelieve fact that the regime had WMDs.

Don't forget -- there is no doubt that at one time Iraq had WMDs, and used them. Even Dennis Kucinich acknowledges that.

"More likely, you have different standards for what constitutes a lie. When Clinton lied about having sex with "that woman", I'm sure you were appalled, when Cheney said that there was "no doubt"(not "based on our intelligence we believe") that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear programs or Rumsfeld said we knew "exactly" (not "we think we know") where the WMDs were stockpiled even though they knew neither, you didn't consider those statements lies."

Thanks for illustrating my point. Clinton lied, Bush was mistaken. The nasty, unacceptable fact is that no one has provided any evidence that Bush lied, but plenty of evidence that he was mistaken. Please stop acting like the idea that Saddam needed to be deposed originated with Bush, and that he had to make stuff up to get anyone in the Democratic party to go along. To return to the topic, Hill's being for it before she was against it is another example of her lack of character. Personally, I think Kucinich is a lunatic, but I'd vote for him before I'd vote for Clinton. At least he has some consistency.

John Stodder,Isn't a tad late to be defending the Bush administration's reasoning for invading Iraq?

They started out saying we had to because Saddam wouldn't let in inspectors, which is not true, and that he had connections to 9/11, also not true.

Then they said they had "new" intelligence indicating he had WMD, chemical wagons (Cheney) and huge stockpiles of anthrax (Powell)...also not true.

Then, after invading, they immediately realize he doesn't had a squat, but instead of readjusting their focus, they disband the army, allow the pilfering of massive arms dumps and start the long road down the rabbit hole to fiasco.

Now, after 4 years, and a number of generals who have either been relieved or resigned...under pressure for saying things Bush didn't want to hear...we have a "new and improved" theory that the "surge" will put Humpty back together again.

Almost 4,000 dead American, 30,000 wounded Americans, untold dead Iraqi civilians...and you still take the stand that Bush never lied, misdirected, misled Americans??

I realize you're conservative and Hillary is your worst nightmare, but at this point in time, defending Bush is laughable at best...especially considering that about 60% of America doesn't.

I'm not registered Republican, I've never donated any money to the Republican Party or their candidates, and the only party for whom I have signed a petition to allow its candidates on the ballot was the Socialist Party (or some such). Told you I was freaky. My wife insists I'm a libertarian, but some of their ideas are a little whacked out for me. I do vote Republican more often than Democrat, but that's largely because the GOP is at least being run by adults. When the Dems start running candidates that are not beholden to the likes of the Kossacks and Soros, then I'll listen.

So No One, I am guessing you were ok with Bush's appointment of Poindexter *and* Hillary's association with Berger, or you are perhaps a lowly hypocrite like us.

I disapprove of both but I see a distinction. Clinton shows poor judgment in her informal association with Berger. Bush showed far worse judgment in appointing Poindexter to an important position in government. Both Clinton and Bush are guilty of poor judgment-the difference is in degree.

stoddard,You always come back with some kind of silly response, indicating others just don't "understand" what it is you're saying. Well, here are a few things...in your own words:

You write as if you know that Cheney had two piles of intel from which he could choose what to believe, what to ignore and what to lie about. That's not a fact. It was the CIA where the two (or more) piles existed and it was their judgment as to which to believe and forward to the policymakers.

*Cheney had plenty of good and bad intel. He and other cherry-picked what they wanted to hear and use, and discarded everything else.

It's not a small distinction. If you're the president and your primary source of intel is telling you that Iraq has WMDs -- not saying maybe, not giving you a choice of what to believe, but unambiguously telling you -- it is irresponsible to act as if Iraq doesn't have WMDs.

*And if the "primary source" is being disputed by other intelligence agencies as a drunkard? And the inspectors are telling you not to invade, to allow them to continue their work?

You could still decide not to go to war, but you would be making that decision in the face of intel that you had no reason to disbelieve fact that the regime had WMDs.

*And you base this on Bush's theory that Saddam was going to attack America? Had something to do with 9/11? All bullshit and you know it.

Don't forget -- there is no doubt that at one time Iraq had WMDs, and used them. Even Dennis Kucinich acknowledges that.

If Condi Rice does the same thing after the Bush admin is over, will you see that the same way you see the Berger situation? I suspect not, and further suspect that your view of it wouldn't be based on principle.

The CIA didn't provide Cheney with the intel from which to cherrypick. At least not according to "Curveball," the definitive book on the subject, written by an LA Times reporter who is as far from being a sympathetic Bush-loving neocon as you can get.

Yes, there was a lot of discussion about Curveball's many, many deficienies as an intel resource. The red flags should not have been ignored. But that information did not reach the White House. It stayed within the CIA. The name "Curveball" was unknown to Bush/Cheney/Rummy at the outset of the war. Tenet didn't explain the essential weakness at the core of his agency's intel to the Administration until after David Kay finally gave up the ghost.

Which also explains why the French, the Germans, Clinton Admin types did not challenge the correctness of the WMD intel. Some questioned whether war was the appropriate response, but that Hussein had WMDs was not, as of March '03, controversial anywhere.

I'm not making that point to support Bush. I'm making it to support accurate history, which matters to me much more than any of our current politicos or parties. The left's insistence on rewriting history to support their rhetoric disturbs me greatly, and it disturbs me even more to be called a Bush-lover for challenging the propaganda. It lacks character at best, and is Orwellian at worst.

John Stodder,Since you've evidently locked on to the Curveball book...why not read "Fiasco" and really get a feel for the history of our involvement in Iraq, all the way back to the Persian Gulf War, right up to our current situation.

By the way, I have no idea what your real political leanings are, but I stand by my statement that defending Bush at this stage is ridiculous...but at least we're able to beat it back and forth.

Over the past 7 years, I personally think Bush illustrated a complete lack of foresight or understanding of what it takes to lead.

*Just yesterday during his press conference he made bizarre statements relating to a potential World War III that probably scared the hell out of most of the world.

You want to talk about Bush is a lousy president? Fine. But that's a different topic than "Bush lied."

Q: Has Bush been a lousy president?

A: Yes. I am opposed to most of the Bush agenda and have little regard for his skills as a leader.

I support the war as an American, not as a Bush supporter. My evaluation, based on everything I've read, is that the case for war was stronger than the case against it, both at the time and now. WMDs were part of it, but so was the heightened concern about state-supported terrorism. Hussein was doing that; of that there is no doubt. Thirdly, there was a gross human rights crisis in Iraq -- forgotten now, but very compelling to me.

To anticipate the comeback, yes civil war is also bad for human rights. But a civil war can end. Hussein's regime was built on genocide and child-raping. He was starving his own people to feed his military ambitions. That wasn't going to end so long as he or his successors were in power.

Also, don't forget Oil-for-Food. That it was a scandalous abuse of the Iraqi people's faith in the UN was clear to some of us back then based on reporting that the MSM largely ignored. It was empowering Hussein, corrupting some of our allies and hurting the people of Iraq.

Do I regret my support for the war? Only to this extent. I had too high of an opinion of the competence of Bush, Cheney and especially Rumsfeld and even more especially Tenet. Their leadership of the war was awful. There were so many mistakes made in that first year -- and "Fiasco" is a good accounting of them.

However, that doesn't make the war "Bush's war," in my opinion. We've got a situation, partly created by our own blunders, but more created by Al Queda, and we have to deal with that situation militarily. From what I can gather, the arrival of Robert Gates was the turning point. Gates has taken to heart the kind of information Rumsfeld fired people for bringing to him. Petreaus is an expert in the kind of warfare Rumsfeld specifically ruled out as being needed. There is a sense of realism and intelligence being applied to this war for the first time since it started. That's something every American should be glad about, and should wish for its complete success.

Lucky,regarding SCHIP:Do you actually find out what's fully in a bill before aligning yourself with the left wing side?

I agree that Bush should have vetoed numerous pork-laden bills passed by the Republican Congress. But his failure to do so then doesn't make him a hypocrite - and even more importantly, doesn't make him wrong - to have vetoed this particular bill now. The bill should have been modified by the Congress to ensure state sign-ups of every low-income American child and not start the dangerous, socialist-creep of insuring those who can already afford it. An $80,000 income practical cutoff - my gosh, just call it Canada 2 for crying out loud. The Democrat leadership is dishonestly trying to use SCHIP as a stealth bill to begin the roll to socialized medicine or pave the way for Hillary-care. If the Democrats were truly serious about insuring more low-income children, they could have easily compromised and gotten an increase the President would sign.

Sorry, but this was political posturing of the sickest kind - hiding behind "the children".The Democrat Party should hang it's head in shame for it's duplicity on this one.

And to think that people want even more of this dishonesty with Hillary at the top.

Got a lot more than that. But you see, I am willing to believe that politicians I don't agree with might be acting in good faith. You are quite certain that somewhere between the Clinton admin and the Bush admin that Bush (not the CIA) somehow figured out that Saddam didn't have WMD's (and you curiously view WMD's as the only reason for the invasion, which is demonstrably false) but lied about it anyway. The problem is that people like you somehow magically know how evil Bush is, even though you really can't provide any proof of it. Let's face it. If Bush really had done all the things he's accused of, he would have been removed from office long ago. I suspect that what really rankles you the most is that it is clear as a bell that Clinton lied. You lie about Bush lying because in the end it's your opinion, and not a fact.

Anyways, feel free to pound on me some more, but I won't reply (at least not for a while). I've got to cook so the wife doesn't get cranky. The sad fact is that none of us will change anybody else's mind, so why should we bother?

Splitting hairs does not get you out. Wrong is wrong, there is no grey.

I'm not splitting hairs. Both Clinton and Bush showed poor judgment in associating with men guilty of destroying documents. I don't see how I can be any clearer about this.

If you believe wrong is wrong and that there is no grey, you'd have already stated your serious objection to Bush's appointment of Poindexter. This is why I'm led to believe your moaning about Hillary Clinton's association with Sandy Berger is not based on principle.

Based on the Downing Street memo, the Bush-Aznar memo and the Bush-Blair memo, it's clear that the Bush administration and Bush himself were guilty of misrepresentation. There is little point in quibbling about whether this misrepresentation meets the standard of a lie.

No One said... Bush showed far worse judgment in appointing Poindexter to an important position in government. Both Clinton and Bush are guilty of poor judgment-the difference is in degree.

I dis-agree. I note, Berger pleaded guilty. Poindexter was ultimately found not guilty by an appeals court. Hillary personally is connected to Berger, Poindexter wasn't "appointed" by Bush, he took a civil service job for which he was qualified for. He served 8 months in that job 5 years ago.

The Lefties have come up with two "talking points" that the transnationalist media loves to try and reinforce:

1. Intelligence and law enforcement are all-perfect. Any time they are unable to prevent any crime or attack from occuring, solve it, or have perfect knowledge of every criminal or enemy's assets and motives ---the approved press metanarrative calls for it to be called:

"A Shocking, shocking failure we are outraged about!!!"

2. When anyone acts on imperfect information...from a sucessful but crazy enemy deception, or fails to act.....the Lefty/secular progressive metanarrative holds to the "Marxist/Jewish Bolshevik" Line that all mistakes, even honest ones, must be characterized as "Lies, lies! Shocking lies we are outraged about!!" to discredit and hopefully criminalize decision makers you wish to take power from.

It doesn't matter how ridiculous that all "all decisions and gov't leaders must act with perfect intelligence and awareness" is.Or anyone unaware, or deceived is "A liar" are.

The clever, sly, metanarrative cooked up by the likes of the Sulzberger Family, Hollywood Moguls&Players, Chomsky, Feingold, Soros has stuck a bit - so America's "influencers behind the curtains" are sticking with it still. That history long term will see it as a crock on the order of the Czars "influencers" or Stalin's propagandists is irrelevant. It is all about tactics of the sly and clever people in positions to influence - to gain power over the guillable Masses.One reason why, for example, the Sulzbergers don't care about their NY Times stock value being destroyed...because they are playing a bigger game.

And, as we both know, your comment is straight out of the mouth of Rush, Sean, Bill and other radio right wing talking heads...along with Bush, of course.

As usual...

Don't argue that way Lucky. It's cheap. You haven't addressed the merits of anyone's position or offered any ideas of your own. You rarely do. You simply play the guilt-by-association game. It's irrelevant to the merits of B's point if it happens to coincide with Rush Limbaugh's. And how do you know that it does? Are you a big Rush listener? I would have no idea if Rush or Hannity has addressed this or any other issue, but apparently you're an expert.

Hitler was a vegetarian. Using your methods, if I get into an argument with a vegetarian about food, all I have to say is, "Well, your comment is straight out of Hitler."

Hillary Clinton choosing Mr. Burglar is a foregone conclusion. It doesn't matter that a woman of her obviously transparent disreputable character would choose someone who likewise is of a transparent disreputable character. After all, look who she is married to. This woman is narcissistic ambition cloaked in an intemperate ego of a shell, who is trying very hard to downplay her negatives with fake, phony, and inappropriately timed cackling, while letting everyone know what a down to earth, salt of the earth woman she truly is.

1. not all jobs require confirmation. like Berger's old job as the NSA.

2. the advice thing will become more problematic once Hillary gets the nomination. At that point she starts getting NSC briefings. Berger can't participate, nor can she talk to him about anything that she is briefed on. President's can determine who has a need to know. In effect, President's can't have a security violation. Candidates however, like Hill at that point, in theory, can go to jail for revealing info.

crimso....you beat back pretty good i must say. don't ever say "why bother" though. it is important to fight for your belief or position as hard as you can and you have to expect that the opposition must and should fight back equally hard - otherwise the topic isn't heard correctly.

might not change a mind on the larger issue but might make the opposite number think about some tidbit that will lead to a bigger and yet another bigger crumb of truth.

by the way, what did you cook for dinner? i made the worst chicken cutlets on earth...but, as everyone knows i'm just a chicken liberal.

your comment was so excellent above that it has deflated any desire of mine to pick on Hillary anymore for awhile. I'm putting down Carl Bernstein's "A Woman in Charge". I'll pick up the last 3rd in another month or two.

Thanks again for the well written comment (jealous over here).

By the way, I cooked Chicken and tomatoes in a slow cooker today. Pretty good over a cajun rice.

I know you added the "in theory" caveat, but it hardly even seems worth mentioning the possibility. There's no way anyone is going to prosecute the Democratic candidate for President unless there's a dead body and a smoking gun involved.

how's that. is berger under further investigation for something? has his case been settle with DOJ? Something you know that everyone else is missing?

AND NOW THE CREME DU JOUR:"I suppose you also support disbarred lawyer and felon Lynne Stewart teaching ethics at Hofstra Law School."

gosh, i thought we put that puppy to bed a few weeks ago. she is not teaching ethics at Hofstra. Repeat after me. She ISN'T teaching ethics at Hofstra. she is appearing on a panel discussion related to attorney/client ethics that is about 20 minutes (her time) long. SHE IS NOT TEACHING AT HOFSTRA.

Got it? I'm in a good mood this morning so I'll refrain from calling you a s....head. See. isn't that nice of me?

As has been long said...is this the best cheese you got? if not...well.

hd: I won't tell you exactly what I made (a form of pasta), because it was a bit of a cop-out. Quite delicious, but definitely prepared with quick and easy in mind (and it didn't come from a box). I usually get a lot more involved (and I prepare almost all of our meals). I did, however, make a pecan fudge sheet cake for dessert! Tonight will probably be a grilling night...

John Stoddard,You say I'm not arguing or discussing in "good faith" when b says this: "...you know it was a dishonest Democrat cheat bill..."

What the hell is that supposed to mean? A "Democrat cheat bill"??

And it doesn't "coincide" with what Rush says...it's damn near EXACTLT what Rush says.

*Oh, and here's another nugget from Rush's arsenal: "Health insurance is just like hotel rooms. You just call around and get the best rate...there are ALWAYS hotels and heal insurance plans that are "moderately price."

Of course this is from a man who has a 250,000,000 contract and enough insurance for ten people...all paid for by his employer.